Your clients should be the same or as close to the master server version,
a 4.5 client is not even officially supported using a 6.0x master server
afaik.
Justin.
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Abdul-Sattar.Mohammad AT ubs DOT com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Hi,
>
> I have Netbackup 6.0MP4 On Solaris 8 and I wants to configure Netbackup
> for my clients which is running solaris10, when I configure normal way ,
> the backup failling with EC: 58, I saw in Solaris 10 ,
>
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root bin 20 Oct 5 10:16 openv -> /opt/VRTSnetcl/openv
>
> In Solaris 10 coming by default Netbackup installed ,
>
> NAME: VERITAS NetBackup 4.5 Client, Patch FP8 for Solaris 10
>
> an any one tell me how configure Thanks
>
> Warm Regds,
> Abdul Sattar
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of
> veritas-bu-request AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:03 AM
> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 18, Issue 13
>
> Send Veritas-bu mailing list submissions to
> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> veritas-bu-request AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> veritas-bu-owner AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of Veritas-bu digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
> (Edson Noboru Yamada)
> 2. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari
> s
> (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
> 3. Re: Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3 LTO3 dr ives (50
> clients) (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
> 4. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari a
> (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
> 5. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
> (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
> 6. Re: LTO3 mixed LTO2 drive using LTO2 cartridgeswithACSLS
> (Boris Kraizman)
> 7. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solaria s
> (Boris Kraizman)
> 8. Re: LotusNotes backup strategy (Boris Kraizman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:12:37 -0300
> From: "Edson Noboru Yamada" <enyamada AT gmail DOT com>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solari s
> To: "Curtis Preston" <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com>
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Message-ID:
> <90f80d730710071512w409048d0p2b400d2a68756b9 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thanks for correcting me, Curtis.
>
> Regards
>
> On 10/6/07, Curtis Preston <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe you meant to say that Solaris X86 isn't supported as a
>> media or master server. It is supported as of NBU 6.5, using Solaris
>> x86 10 running on AMD64, which is what the V40Z is.
>>
>>
>>
>> See the following document for clarification:
>>
>>
>> http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_Enterpri
>> se_Server/278064.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> W. Curtis Preston
>>
>> Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com
>>
>> VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu [mailto:
>> veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] *On Behalf Of *Edson Noboru
>
>> Yamada
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:35 AM
>> *Cc:* veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solari s
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> SUN V40z with SOlaris is not an option for NBU Server, since a media
>> or master server running under Solaris is not (or, at least, was not)
>> supported by Veritas.
>>
>> Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services,
>> that is pretty high too (a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every
>> single time he says "Good morning").
>>
>> rgds
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/07, *Dominik Pietrzykowski* <
>> dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Edson,
>>
>>
>>
>> You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
>> out) to an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35%
>> faster and only a few thousand more.
>>
>> We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer.
>> This was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and
>> Redhat and found Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We
>> couldn't get plugins for the database we used etc etc. We also found
>> that filesystem (about 5%) and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was
>> better on the Solaris x86 system.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
>>
>>
>>
>> You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
>> Solaris from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean
> Linux in general.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when
>
>> you look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for,
>> they are very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't
>> compare some of the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the
>> E25K, they are expensive but for large enterprise business critical
>> Apps I would only use them or a mainframe.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
>> that hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We
>
>> ended up swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember)
>> because we couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to
>> change the parts all the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm
>> not sure if it's the same in the US or other places ???
>>
>>
>>
>> Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the
>> user base part:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider
>>> user
>> base for Solaris.
>>
>> I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
>> lot of people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to
>
>> that there would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would
>
>> be minorities.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past
>> in the various places I have worked at.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
>> sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
>> Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and
>
>> it works fine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
>> *Cc:* veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solaris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I dont think so.
>>
>> Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount
>> of money you can buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more
>> memory, more CPUs etc) and Linux with a so much better performance.
>> I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
>> opinion, of course.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> On 10/4/07, *Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy* < anepomn AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear NetBackup Experts!
>>
>> I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I
> choose?
>>
>> Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
>> think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
>> base for Solaris.
>>
>>
>> Is this indeed the case?
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Aleksandr
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071007/
> 0eea2f0d/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:47:12 +1000
> From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solari s
> To: "Martin, Jonathan" <JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com>,
> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Message-ID:
>
> <A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE372D7 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>> We're a big Dell shop here in the US and I've got boxes nearing end of
>
>> life / on their 5th and 6th year of warranty support and Dell has had
> no
>> issues getting hardware to me within the support guidelines (4hr or
> Next
>> Business.)
>
> I don't think they care much about us Aussies !!!! To be honest we're
> probably a small enterprise market when you compare us to the US.
>
> Dom
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin, Jonathan [mailto:JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com]
> Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:17 PM
> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solari s
>
> We're a big Dell shop here in the US and I've got boxes nearing end of
> life
> / on their 5th and 6th year of warranty support and Dell has had no
> issues
> getting hardware to me within the support guidelines (4hr or Next
> Business.)
> Granted we don't buy extended support for most of our machines / we run
> our
> own "parts shop" with decommissioned hardware. I'll agree however that
> Sun
> hardware seems to last forever. I've got several ultra1-2s from 199X
> still
> running strong with an occasional disk failure years after their Dell
> counterparts have had darn near every part swapped.
>
> As far as Sun versus Linux, we ported a mission critical application
> from
> Sun to Redhat on Dell after running processor comparisons. At the time
> and
> for the money the current Intel chip was toasting the current Sparc from
> a
> processing load and financial standpoint. I don't keep up with the
> current
> Sparcs and I haven't tested any of the Solaris X86 but I can definitely
> see
> Sun having turned that around by now.
>
> -Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu on behalf of Dominik
> Pietrzykowski
> Sent: Thu 10/4/2007 10:21 PM
> To: Edson Noboru Yamada
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solari s
>
>
>
>
>
> Edson,
>
>
>
> You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
> out) to
> an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35% faster and
> only
> a few thousand more.
>
> We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer.
> This
> was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and Redhat and
> found
> Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We couldn't get
> plugins
> for the database we used etc etc. We also found that filesystem (about
> 5%)
> and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was better on the Solaris x86
> system.
>
>
>
> Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
>
>
>
> You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
> Solaris
> from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean Linux in
> general.
>
>
>
> I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when
> you
> look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for, they are
> very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't compare some
> of
> the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the E25K, they are
> expensive
> but for large enterprise business critical Apps I would only use them or
> a
> mainframe.
>
>
>
> I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
> that
> hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We ended
> up
> swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember) because we
> couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to change the parts
> all
> the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm not sure if it's the same
> in
> the US or other places ???
>
>
>
> Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the user
> base
> part:
>
>
>
>> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
> base
> for Solaris.
>
>
>
> I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
> lot of
> people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to that
> there
> would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would be
> minorities.
>
>
>
> Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past in
> the
> various places I have worked at.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dominik
>
>
>
> BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
> sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
> Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and
> it
> works fine.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
> Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solaris
>
>
>
>
> I dont think so.
>
> Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount of
> money you can
> buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more memory, more CPUs etc)
> and
> Linux with a so much better performance.
> I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
> opinion, of course.
>
> regards
>
>
>
> On 10/4/07, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy < anepomn AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
> Dear NetBackup Experts!
>
> I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I choose?
>
> Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
> think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
> base for Solaris.
>
>
> Is this indeed the case?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Aleksandr
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> <mailto:Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:48:53 +1000
> From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3
> LTO3 dr ives (50 clients)
> To: Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy <anepomn AT gmail DOT com>,
> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Message-ID:
>
> <A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE372D9 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
>
>
> I had one (V440) running 4 x LTO2s and it didn't seem to break a sweat.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy [mailto:anepomn AT gmail DOT com]
> Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 4:03 AM
> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3 LTO3
> drives
> (50 clients)
>
> Dear NetBackup experts!
>
> I have to select hardware to run a server with several LTO3 drives.
> Each LTO3 drive can run up to 288GB/hour uncompressed - I don't
> believe I can ever get this in a real life.
>
> Questions:
> 1.Should I have each LTO3 on a separate fiber card?
> 2.Is Sun Fire V440 with 4 CPUs and 4G RAM sufficient?
>
> Please share you experience if you can.
>
> Thank you,
> Aleksandr
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:29:10 +1000
> From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solari a
> To: Jon Bousselot <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com>,
> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Message-ID:
>
> <A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE37306 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
>
>
> Hi Jon,
>
>> Since we can now buy dual processor multi-core servers, that have
> clock
>> speeds significantly higher than sparc, we have likely seen the last
>> sun/sparc media server in our datacenter. Unless I can convince
>> management that the T2000 is a good idea and a great price, but this
> one
>> is going to be a political issue instead of a technical one.
>
> It's a shame the Niagara CPU was not built for multi CPU servers. The
> T2000
> is fast but in a multi CPU box it would be amazing. That's why SUN is
> bringing out the ROCK and the Niagara 2 (also known as Huron I believe
> ?)
> due this month in Aus. I think you can bank on the Niagara 2 boxes but
> it's
> early days for the Rock. The Rock brings big promises and I hope it
> delivers.
>
> SUN certainly did have a low point for a while but I believe they are
> doing
> well to get out of it and I am happy with their new products. I am also
> looking forward to playing with their new boxes. I wouldn't give up on
> them
> just yet.
>
> Dom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Bousselot [mailto:jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com]
> Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 8:24 AM
> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solaria
>
> I have been using NetBackup on Sun/Sparc hardware since version 3.2, and
> a majority of my challenges came from the clients. It got easier when
> Windows 2000 became the normal windows client, and I started using LTO
> media. Solaris 9 and 10 have been very stable deployments as well, and
> 10 is supposed to have a faster tcp stack.
>
> The x86 systems are clearly faster in GHz compared to current sparc
> systems, and I think you still pay a premium license to Veritas for
> using sun/sparc hardware for media servers. Current sun hardware has
> some impressive internal bandwidth speeds, but this assumes you can
> effortlessly get the data into the media server and back out to a tape
> or disk. Internal bandwidth might win in a bake-off if you are trying
> to see which server can buffer data faster in memory.
>
> Over the years, I have appreciated how sun/sparc/solaris systems behave
> like big computers and less like a PC. The newest Dell/Sun x86 systems
> have integrated lights out managers, which will let you see the last
> thing your dying server said before going down, which helps diagnose
> hardware faults that would otherwise be lost on a headless x86 system
> running linux.
>
> Since we can now buy dual processor multi-core servers, that have clock
> speeds significantly higher than sparc, we have likely seen the last
> sun/sparc media server in our datacenter. Unless I can convince
> management that the T2000 is a good idea and a great price, but this one
> is going to be a political issue instead of a technical one.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:34:19 +1000
> From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solari s
> To: Edson Noboru Yamada <enyamada AT gmail DOT com>
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Message-ID:
>
> <A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE3730B AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> Hi Edson,
>
>
>
>> Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services,
> that
> is pretty high too
>> (a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every single time he says "Good
> morning").
>
>
>
> We have a good relationship with Sun here and don't find them to be
> ripping
> us off.
>
>
>
> We have Platinum support but only all them in if there's hardware or
> some
> other sort of serious issue.
>
> Most of them team here is competent enough to fix the other issues on
> their
> own. Plus we have an ex-SUN
>
> person here who knows how to get a good deal out of them.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dom
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
> Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 11:35 PM
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solari s
>
>
>
>
> SUN V40z with SOlaris is not an option for NBU Server, since a media or
> master server running
> under Solaris is not (or, at least, was not) supported by Veritas.
>
> Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services, that
> is
> pretty high too
> (a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every single time he says "Good
> morning").
>
> rgds
>
>
>
>
> On 10/4/07, Dominik Pietrzykowski < dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au
> <mailto:dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au> > wrote:
>
>
>
> Edson,
>
>
>
> You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
> out) to
> an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35% faster and
> only
> a few thousand more.
>
> We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer.
> This
> was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and Redhat and
> found
> Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We couldn't get
> plugins
> for the database we used etc etc. We also found that filesystem (about
> 5%)
> and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was better on the Solaris x86
> system.
>
>
>
> Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
>
>
>
> You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
> Solaris
> from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean Linux in
> general.
>
>
>
> I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when
> you
> look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for, they are
> very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't compare some
> of
> the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the E25K, they are
> expensive
> but for large enterprise business critical Apps I would only use them or
> a
> mainframe.
>
>
>
> I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
> that
> hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We ended
> up
> swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember) because we
> couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to change the parts
> all
> the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm not sure if it's the same
> in
> the US or other places ???
>
>
>
> Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the user
> base
> part:
>
>
>
>> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
> base
> for Solaris.
>
> I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
> lot of
> people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to that
> there
> would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would be
> minorities.
>
>
>
> Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past in
> the
> various places I have worked at.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dominik
>
>
>
> BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
> sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
> Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and
> it
> works fine.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com
> <mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com> ]
> Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> <mailto:veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solaris
>
>
>
>
> I dont think so.
>
> Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount of
> money you can
> buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more memory, more CPUs etc)
> and
> Linux with a so much better performance.
> I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
> opinion, of course.
>
> regards
>
> On 10/4/07, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy < anepomn AT gmail DOT com
> <mailto:anepomn AT gmail DOT com> > wrote:
>
> Dear NetBackup Experts!
>
> I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I choose?
>
> Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
> think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
> base for Solaris.
>
>
> Is this indeed the case?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Aleksandr
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - <mailto:Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> <http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
> 5a81c439/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 04:47:45 +0200
> From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 mixed LTO2 drive using LTO2
> cartridgeswithACSLS
> To: "Martin Ruslan" <mit.martin AT gmail DOT com>
> Cc: Marianne Van Den Berg <mvdberg AT stortech.co DOT za>,
> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Message-ID:
> <7454e3bf0710071947r7effaa3dmcd13c97f4650ca3d AT mail.gmail DOT com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I can proof, I have LTO-3 tape drives configured as hcart2 and use them
> with
> LTO-2 tape cartridges. I have the second site where just LTO-2 tape
> drives
> that is why just LTO-2 tapes for consistency. As soon as I will have a
> chance to upgrade the second site with LTO-3 drives, I will reconfigure
> the
> first (not really primary site) site and then just do the backup with
> LTO-3
> tape drives and keep old LTO-2 drives for restores from LTO-2 tape
> media.
> So, the same what Marianne said. Btw, interesting thing, LTO-3 tape
> drives
> seams faster then LTO-2 drives even when you use them with LTO-2 tape
> media.
>
> Regards,
> Boris
>
> On 10/6/07, Martin Ruslan <mit.martin AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> Yup,
>> that can be the way.. but they want the ocular proof that LTO3 drives
> can
>> read and write the LTO2 media's.
>>
>> for all, the library is STK L5500. Is it support for the partitioning?
>> getting more interesting here..
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin.
>>
>> On 10/3/07, Marianne Van Den Berg <mvdberg AT stortech.co DOT za> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would personally config the drives as hcart2 - easiest way out.
> When
>>> you receive your LTO3 media, reconfig your drives as hcart3 and add
> your
>>> hcart3 media. Your hcart2 images can be restored using the LTO2
> drives.
>>>
>>> We have a customer doing that - LTO2 & LTO3 all configed as hcart2,
> all
>>> using hcart2 media. Backups written on the LTO3 drives using LTO2
> media can
>>> be restored on any of the drives.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Marianne *
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
> 5aa3bdd6/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 04:52:59 +0200
> From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solaria s
> To: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Message-ID:
> <7454e3bf0710071952h67f2866dy82fef75eb9f79636 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes, as I said. I am a RHCE as well, but I will vote for Solaris with
> NetBackup. If you have Solaris in place, stick with it further, it is
> going
> to be a better choice.
>
> On 10/6/07, Ed Wilts <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org> wrote:
>>
>> >I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
>> opinion, of course.
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree. New features have typically been released on Solaris
> first
>> with Linux to follow. For example, doing Windows Flash Backups was
>> initially supported on a Windows master server, then a Solaris master
>> server, and then eventually a Linux master. In terms of FlashBackup
>> clients, Linux doesn't support this option until NBU 6.5. Ditto with
>> Linux ACL support ? that's 6.5 as well. We're doing FlashBackups on
>> Solaris today but have to wait until we upgrade to 6.5 before our
> Linux
>> clients can catch up. Even then, only ext3 support is there ? not
> even VxFS
>> on Linux!
>>
>>
>>
>> If you're going to live on the leading edge, then Solaris is certainly
> a
>> better choice than Linux.
>>
>> That said, we have a Solaris master and a Linux master. The Linux
> master
>> is in a remote office and is running on an Intel platform where Sun
> wasn't a
>> politically acceptable choice. It has not yet caused us any grief but
> the
>> environment is small enough that just about anything would work.
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW, we've seen similar cases with Veritas VVR support ? it's
> **much**
>> better on Solaris than Linux.
>>
>>
>>
>> Solaris, at least for a while, will continue to be the enterprise
> platform
>> of choice for the majority of customers. I expect this to change over
>> time. I'm a Red Hat Certified Engineer so don't put me in the Linux
> hater
>> camp.
>>
>>
>>
>> ?/Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD
>>
>> Mounds View, MN, USA
>>
>> mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
> a95d33e5/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 05:03:05 +0200
> From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LotusNotes backup strategy
> To: "Jon Bousselot" <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com>
> Cc: Steve Quan <sq01 AT yorku DOT ca>, veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT
> edu
> Message-ID:
> <7454e3bf0710072003i3497a84tffea6ae748e214a1 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> Yes, it seems I am fine with using regular client agent. On windows it
> is
> consistent as it is using VSP or VSS for open files. It worked before as
> well even on Linux. And no problem with restores, just restore the
> entire
> nsf files and then either give the access to users thru the Domino
> links, or
> merge with the existing mail bags. Notes Admins know how to do it. But
> just,
> we have a problem to turn the transaction logs, as we have mail bags
> with
> sizes from 1g to 5gig. Then Domino server cannot handle this properly,
> it
> looks like our messaging team is going to drop this idea, and we will
> see
> how we can implement retention policies using an archiving solution for
> mail. I also agree that database level client (add-on advanced client
> for
> Notes) will slow your backup as it will go thru Domino API, and on IBM
> site,
> I found a lot of hot fixes just for Symantec/Veritas NetBackup, then
> again
> even more considerations. But, it looks like to convert LAN agents to
> SAN
> media servers will improve our situation.
>
> Thank you,
> Boris
>
> On 10/5/07, Jon Bousselot <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> We use the notes agent, and write about 380GB of data to tape, coming
>> from two servers. The mailboxes are split by alphabet. Average
>> throughput to tape is about 8 to 10 MB/sec from each client, and we do
> a
>> full backup every night. We keep the weekend fulls at a different
>> retention than the weekdays, and backing up this much data makes a
>> recovery very simple. I have reviewed the incremental notes backup,
> and
>> it appears to only get the transaction logs. We have not tested a
>> restore from this type of backup, so I don't know how well it works.
> I
>> think we might just be lucky so far that we've never needed to roll a
>> data file forward from logs. Usually we're restoring the entire .nsf
>> file and letting users attach to the current and previous one to
> manage
>> the differences.
>>
>> Along with the full .nsf backups for mail, we also get the transaction
>> logs. I don't think I've ever needed to use them.
>>
>> -Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Boris,
>>>
>>> We did transaction log bkups until recently, as we were never able
> to
>> get
>>> our "point in time" recoveries to work. I suspect that it's because
> of
>> the
>>> length of time it takes to do the database backup (couple of days
> for
>> just
>>> over 1TB over the LAN). We also multi-streamed the transaction and
>>> database backups to ensure that the transaction log file(s) would be
>>> reinitialized.
>>>
>>> I'm still VERY interested in seeing how other sites are doing their
>> Notes
>>> backups/restores.
>>>
>>> /Steve
>>> ---
>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Boris Kraizman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to get back to this topic. Do you do transaction log
> backups
>> using
>>>>> NBU add-on database agent for Lotus Notes? How it works for you?
> We
>> are
>>>>> still doing file level backups with regular NBU client for
> Windows. I
>> was
>>>>> asked to evaluate transactional log backups as well, we have a
> few
>> mail
>>>>> servers with 0.5TB data on each. We backup them over LAN, I am
>> thinking to
>>>>> convert them into SAN media backup servers. Any useful
> information on
>> how
>>>>> you do the backup for Domino environment would be really helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw Jerry also responded on this topic. Jerry, could you please
> be
>> more
>>>>> detail how you do VSS or I can see you do the array based
> solution
>> with
>>>>> local copy cloning, correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anybody do transactional log backups for Domino Notes? Any
> pros
>> and
>>>>> cons?
>>>>>
>>>>> Curtis? maybe you can get back on this one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Boris
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/15/07, Steve Quan <sq01 AT yorku DOT ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We've been "wrestling" with this for quite some time, and very
>> curious to
>>>>>>> see how other sites are managing their Lotus Notes backups.
> We're
>> running
>>>>>>> NBU6.0 MP4 (servers and clients). The database is just over 1TB
> and
>> we do
>>>>>>> transaction log backups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> /Steve
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>>>>>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
> 7acc246d/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
> End of Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 18, Issue 13
> ******************************************
>
> UBS is expanding its presence in Singapore. UBS and its group of
> companies are now operating from its new registered address:
> One Raffles Quay
> #50-01 North Tower
> Singapore 048583
> UBS Mainline: +65 6495 8000
>
> Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com
>
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only
> for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
> should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
> e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
> E-mails are not encrypted and cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender
> therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
> contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
> If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
> message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
> construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities
> or related financial instruments.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
